Archive for April 8th, 2013

While there has been plenty of promise surrounding the launch of the new HTC One, the new smartphone’s camera has left quite a few people puzzled.

This is because whereas the typical flagship smartphone on the market today comes complete with a 13 megapixel camera, the HTC One is instead packed with a 4 megapixel camera.

Such a large drop has naturally led to people querying whether they will be missing out if they opt for this device over one of its many rivals. After all, while owners will be able to improve the aesthetic appeal of their new phone by getting their hands on a range of excellent HTC One accessories – Mobile Madhouse already has a great selection on hand to celebrate the new smartphone’s launch, highlighted by its wide variety of quirky cases – there will still be the issue of the standard equipment not quite being up to par.

Symon Whitehorn, a former Kodak executive who is now the director of special projects at HTC, has attempted to quell such arguments in an interview with Computerworld.

He acknowledged: “We think of it as a forward-looking step. It’s allowed us to do a lot more things with the camera than we’d otherwise have been able to do – the first one being the low-light performance, which really is quite special. You get this absolutely natural tone. The camera takes pictures the way you see them, the way you see your moments.”

Mr Whitehorn also stressed that there is a time and a place for cramming lots of megapixels into one device, with larger gadgets usually perfect for utilising this strategy with great results. However, he believes that trying to get more megapixels into a smartphone’s camera while reducing the size of its sensor, as well as the entire size of the device, is having a detrimental effect on the quality of a phone’s photos.

“For 99 percent of what people do with their images, they actually don’t need the high megapixel count. We’d rather give them the sort of performance that is real-world usable,” Mr Whitehorn added to underline that more does not necessarily equal better.